Democrats versus Republicans

[sck5]

Doesnt it just burn you repubs up that Obama is going to have a major fundraising advantage over McCain? For the first time ever the Dems will be way ahead (it was pretty even in 2004). The normal pattern is for the Repubs to have a major money advantage, so we Dems know what it is like to swim against that kind of current.

But one thing we learned during all those years of Republican money advantage - the public doesnt know or care about campaign financing - You can whine and moan all you want but it wont make a nickel's worth of difference in November.

[sck5]

erps

my comment about al Qaeda attacking NY was in response to somebody asking how I would like it if al Qaeda came to my state.

and you are right about the contradictory nature of my statements you cited. I guess you CAN pick a country to invade and if it is Arab then the anti American crazies will come (or at least so it seems). But two observations:

1. We didnt get to pick where to go get Osama. He was in Afghan. and then ran to Pakistan (so they say). We have to get him where he is if we are going to ever get him

2. The fallacy (at least so I think, and so do many in and out of the military) in the "flypaper" theory of fighting the crazies over there so they dont come here is that there isnt a fixed number of them. Many experts believe that invading Iraq has resulted in far more recruitments of new crazies than deaths of the ones who were already terrorists. That means we can have as many wars as we like and they can go on as long as we are willing to supply soldiers to drive around and be targets.

But you were right that what I said was contradictory.

[PBzeer]

That's good sck5. How many times do you keep saying it isn't all Muslims that are terrorists, and now, you indicate they have an infinite supply of them. So which is it? I'm not sure where you keeping getting your "facts" from, but they rarely can stand up to the harsh light of reality.

According to your supposition in item 2 above, one would have to believe that al-Queda is now stronger than it has ever been. In spite of the fact of their dwindling numbers and lack of support from the Iraqi populace.

It seems obvious that your views on the Iraqi war are emotional, rather than rational, judging by your posts. And has more to do with Bush being president, than actually fighting in the Mid East. I'm looking forward to 2010, just to see who your ilk decides to hate when Bush is out of office.

[wind_magic]

Originally Posted by sck5

I get that vibe from many on this thread - no matter what the topic the Dems are bad, even anti-American!! But I can live with it because the koolaid drinking repubs are shortly to be major losers in national campaign largely because of their inability to admit a mistake and change course.

Untrue.

I think Dems have a lot of good ideas. Dems are certainly more open to discussion health care changes that might have a positive result for Americans. Republicans talk about it, but all of their solutions are market based and as much as I like competition in the markets, low cap gains, and all the rest, that just isn't going to fix health care. That's not to say I like Dems ideas about universal health care either, but at least they are open to possibilities.

Dems biggest screw ups that make it hard for them out here in the country are (1) Taxes, and (2) that Dems tend to associate themselves with city cultural values, which just doesn't fly here in the mountains. Doesn't fly, and won't ever fly.

[erps]

get that vibe from many on this thread - no matter what the topic the Dems are bad, even anti-American!! But I can live with it because the koolaid drinking repubs are shortly to be major losers in national campaign largely because of their inability to admit a mistake and change course.

I've vote about 50/50 democrat/republican at the local level, so they're not all bad. Federal level is a different story though.

[sailaway21]

The trouble with Dems is that they're cannibals. What was not to like about some of the policies of Zell Miller, Sam Nunn, or Daniel P. Moynihan? But they all come a cropper against the hard-left that defines the Democrat party. the hard-left has nominated Obama-he now frantically tries to distance himself from those positions that so warmed the Looney's hearts. Howard Kurtz addresses the audacity of change of position in his WP column. washingtonpost.com - nation, world, technology and Washington area news and headlines

Each of the above Dem's got what might now be called the Lieberman treatment. While the vast majority of their opinions were consistent with the Dem's as a whole, they made the unforgivable error of commiting apostasy in one area. The Dem's are good at throwing the baby out with the bath water. The Republicans may not have as big a tent as the Dem's but your chances of staying within it long enough to get a good night's sleep are immeasurably better.

Republicans make better friends than Dems also. Repeublicans will stand by you through thick and thin. Dem's will sacrifice you to some esoteric principle that only later will they admit they really didn't understand-and not understand why you still can't be friends. I guess Dem's are just more in touch with their feminine side.

[bwalker42]

Originally Posted by sck5

"Yes, I guess I pretty much believe that every Arab who blows something up is an "Islamic terrorist".
What do you call them?"

There are something like two dozen different Arab countries. There are many more countries that are predominantly Islam from western Africa to Indonesia. Not every fight they get into is about religion. Not all of them are on some kind of jihad against unbelievers. Just to take the example of the Palestinians, their main issue is land. They and the Israelis both want to live on the same territory and that has proved to be kind of hard to work out. Religions differ between the two peoples but the primary issue isnt a religious one. So, no, I dont call those guys "Islamic terrorists" because they dont claim authority from Allah but rather claim that the land is rightfully theirs. No doubt you can find groups that ARE religious but just to take one of the most important examples, Yasir Arafat wasnt particularly religious.

In sum, it is wrong to group 1.2 billion people into one category and think you can understand them that way. It is like grouping together everyone in the world who is Christian or everyone who speaks English. The world is more complicated than that.

If you are talking to me, I've seen prayer, meaning an actual petition to God, work yes miracles!
And Im just wild enough to believe that if everybody who say that they believe the bible, would do that one thing, and even pray together for 1 minute at the same time every evening,
this country would actually see God working on it's behalf, and already God protects us.
If you want to get technical about it,
that is what the U.S. stands for is US.
God Bless it!!! I say pray for our leaders in this election. And ask God not to give us a man with the same name as Saddam Hussein!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wouldn't it be great if we had another choice in this election. Is it ever too late to ask?
Thank you very much!
as bad as more of the same is it has to be better than that!

btw..
I'm just as heartbroken still over 911 as you are too!
I don't like it when foreigner's make fun of me in my office about that day!
It kinda p@&^*!s me off and makes me think that they are wolves in sheeps clothing.
Especially if they have a certain look. Sorry.
B

[sck5]

"Dems biggest screw ups that make it hard for them out here in the country are (1) Taxes, and (2) that Dems tend to associate themselves with city cultural values, which just doesn't fly here in the mountains. Doesn't fly, and won't ever fly."

ON 1, yes, Dems are willing to pay for what they spend. Repubs spend just as much but borrow the money from arabs and communists. Not a good idea in my book.

On 2 there is something to that - but on the other hand how then do you explain the rise of dems out west like the gov of Montana and the senator recently elected? there are more examples, but the dems have adapted (at least some of them) to the fact that some parts of their old agenda isnt going to win any time soon (e.g. many have given up on gun control and it is no longer part of the national platform)

[sck5]

sway

you need to consult your history. Lieberman didnt get thrown out. He quit when he lost the primary and then ran under his own party label. Now he is supporting the opposition candidate for president. He is perfectly entitled to do all of that but he is hardly an example of a Dem being cast out (unless you call losing a primary being cast out)

and republicans are far more cohesive as a party than dems ever were. Dont forget Will Rogers' famous comment "I am a member of no organized political party. I am a Democrat"

[PBzeer]

Originally Posted by sck5

ON 1, yes, Dems are willing to pay for what they spend. Repubs spend just as much but borrow the money from arabs and communists. Not a good idea in my book.

Care to tell us which Congressional appropriations bill since the Dems took over Congress was LESS than Bush's Budget request?